Foreign Policy, Globalization, And Nuclear Proliferation

Foreign Policy, Globalization, And Nuclear Proliferation
In September of 2015, President Obama pleaded towards his administration to allow entry for 10,000 Syrian refugees into the United States. This
sparked a lot of controversy between millions of Americans due to the threat of possible "terrorist sleeper cells". The feelings of this can, partly, be
contributed towards the emerging terrorist organization, ISIL/ISIS (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). Despite these feelings, there are also many
citizens that believe that our nation must act humanitarianly and urge legislatures to allow these refugees admittance into our country. In the article,
"Obama Increases Number of Syrian Refugees for U.S. Resettlement to 10,000", the authors Gardener Harris, David Sanger, and David Herszenhorn
discuss President Obama's call–to–action and give details that support the allowance of Syrian Refugees into the United States. Contributing writer,
David Sanger, is a chief Washington correspondent for The New York Times and he has covered many issues, like: foreign policy, globalization, and
nuclear proliferation. Mr. Sanger writes about many of the struggles that the refugees may face when attempting to gain access into the United States
and discusses many views from outside politicians and professionals.
The history of current the Syrian conflict began, roughly, five years ago. From these conflicts, the whole world has been witness to many acts of
violence and fighting in the country of Syria. Much of the conflicts in Syria can
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Nuclear Proliferation In Canada
Given the progress of globalization, international security has become an entailment that all countries must work on in order to guarantee the perennity
of world peace. However, this quietude is threatened by the growing menace of nuclear proliferation. Canada, as a party to the Non–Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) since 1969, leads anti–proliferation campaigns to ensure global disarmament.
As a NNWS, Canada has conducted a national non–proliferation and disarmament policy throughout the 20th and 21st centuries. After ratifying the
Convention on Nuclear Safety in 1994, Canada published the Nuclear Safety Control Action (NSCA) in 1997, thus establishing the Canadian Nuclear
Safety Commission, which aims to monitor Canadian nuclear activity as well ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Besides being a signatory to the NPT, it is party to the Comprehensive Test–Ban Treaty (CTBT) since 1998, and it takes part in numerous international
coalitions that work on nuclear issues, such as the G7 bloc and the Nuclear Supply Group. Moreover, Canada has firmly supported the elaboration of a
Fissile Material Cut–off Treaty (FMCT) conducive to the prohibition of fissile material for nuclear weapons. It has also sustained the Statement of
Interdiction Principles emanating from the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) in 2003. Subsequently to the events of 2006 and 2009 that led to the
adoption of the UNSCR 1718 and 1874, Canada has imposed economic and commercial sanctions on the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Those sanctions were reinforced after the DPRK's 2016 nuclear test, which Canada's Foreign Affairs minister StГ©phane Dion has condemned, as a
violation to international agreements.
Canada strongly recommends enforcing the Non–Proliferation Treaty as well as related treaties and amending them to fit the rational requisites of
hesitant non–signatory states. Furthermore, Canada believes that the negotiation and elaboration of the proposed FMCT agreement is necessary, as it
would restrain the spread of nuclear weapons. Canada also urges the International Community to establish a coalition fit to mediate talks between the
DPRK and concerned countries, in order to find a solution that would be advantageous to all

Theoretical Background for Nuclear Proliferation in the...
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND FOR NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION Cold War Era If one were to believe that an official written history of North
Korea during the past few years, the political developments in North Korea after 1945 and until the date entire communist movement seem to have
been relatively simple. In 1948, in the result of nuclear bombs crashed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a requirement for non–proliferation of nuclear
weapons appeared based on their frightening critical power. The U.S, Canada, and the U.K. recommended establishing a commission of nuclear energy
under the United Nations in order to fully eliminate the possibility of nuclear energy use for destructive purposes. In the UN General Assembly, all
members reached a agreement on prohibition of the possession of nuclear weapons separately. The United States also gave option that all
nuclear–related equipment and actions potentially unsafe to world harmony and security should be under the United Nations' possession and rule. This
proposal, called the "Baruch Plan," failed to be adopted due to disagreement by the Soviet Union because of its fear of a United States' nuclear weapons
domination. Initially, it was reflection that, proliferation of nuclear weapons was unlikely to broaden because nuclear weapons and technology would
be difficult to gain. Though, all permanent members in the current UN Security Council officially got nuclear position. There existed common
understanding that horizontal proliferation of

Npdt Pros And Cons
The Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is a treaty signed by one hundred and ninety states used to slow down the spread of a large number of
nuclear weapons while promoting the use of nuclear technologies in peaceful ways such as energy. Its purpose is to keep nuclear technology in
"Nuclear States" or trusted countries until a long–term goal of total disarmament can be reached. Even though it tries to bring about nuclear
disarmament, the NPT is a threat to the modern world. It is currently speculated that the United States has the most stockpiled Nuclear weapons with
Russia being a close second. Each of these countries has "thousands of known stockpiled nuclear weapons with the next closest state having just a few
hundred" (Rising Powers... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
To understand why they were failing you have to understand what was going on in the world at the time. World War Two had just ended and what was
known as the Cold War was just beginning. This war was unlike any other previous war. It was waged on "political, economic, and propaganda fronts
and had only limited recourse to weapons" (Cold War, 2016). A wartime alliance between the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union began
to untie itself as the Soviets began spreading communism in Eastern Europe. In 1949, terrified that the Soviet Union and China were going to spread
communism worldwide, the US and its European allied countries formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO was a unified military
and political organization that was used to resist the spread of communism. That same year the Soviets exploded their very own atomic warhead and
thus ended the U.S. being the only atomic state. Tensions rose very fast and in the late 1950's and early 1960's intercontinental ballistic missiles
became part of the game. At this point "Nuclear weapons [had become] essential to maintaining international security during the Cold War because they
were a means of deterrence" (Shultz,

Chinese Violation of the United Nations Nuclear...
In this day and age, society operates in constant threat of terrorism, war, and nuclear fallout; the rapid growth of international militaristic power
contributes to the ever–present fear in the back of all of our minds. None of us can go through the day without hearing a newscaster or radio
personality talking about the growing threat that Iran or Afghanistan or North Korea poses to the global community, but there is one State that we hear
of. This threat works in a much vaster environment, and shrouds itself in cloaks of secrecy and deception – China. Although the Chinese tend to evade
the mass media frenzy that constantly reports on foreign threats, their underrated affairs are nothing less than lethal. Perhaps the most disturbing... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Terrifyingly, missile/bomb facilities have also been swiftly constructed in the monolithic nation, and operations are flourishing; over the past decades
China has refined their militaristic operations and currently attains a surplus of three million nuclear arms (FAS 1/Terrill 14). The enhancement of
China's nuclear facilities and the advancement of their militant resources, paired with the speed of which both have been attained (China is projected
have a 20% growth of nuclear capacity in the next decade), puts the Chinese in an elite echelon – however, the rate at which their programs remain to
grow is astronomical (and shows no signs of stopping), a sobering fact for other world superpowers. Even more alarming is the potentially lethal
camaraderie between China and Iran. In the summer of 2009, Qin Gang, a spokesman for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, released a statement about the
re–election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying that China "respects the choice of the Iranian people...and hope that Iran can maintain stability and
solidarity" (IranTracker 1). Ahmadinejad, the long–time president of Iran, has openly expressed hostility towards the United States and western
civilization, and has been a long time advocate of Iranian nuclear

The Ukrainian Chemical Industry And Petrochemical Businesses
The Ukrainian chemical industry includes chemical and petrochemical businesses. Products produced in Ukraine include mineral fertilisers,
non–organic acids, such as sulphuric acid, and sodium bicarbonate. The petrochemical industry also manufactures car and motor–cycle tyres, hoses, and
consumer goods. While some of these items have applications in CW and CW decontamination, it is extremely unlikely that Ukraine is using them in
this context given the absence of several other important components. State–owned enterprises account for less than 20 per cent of chemical industry
enterprises but comprise over 30 per cent of the products. The remaining enterprises are owned collectively, with open and close joint–stock companies
being the predominant form. Within the structure of the industry, asset– and energy–intensive basic chemistry enterprises are predominant. In order to
stem the flow of nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC) weapons scientists and to prevent the illicit transfer of weapons–usable material from former
Soviet research institutes, foreign funding has allowed for the creation of grant assistance programmes at the International Science and Technology
Centre (ISTC), the Science and Technology Centre in Ukraine, and the Anti–Plague Institute in Odessa, among others. These projects are supported by
a number of international funders, including: the Nuclear Threat Initiative; the CTR; the US Department of State 's Bio–Industry Initiative (BII); the US

Nuclear Proliferation Is The Global Spread Of Nuclear...
Nuclear proliferation is the global spread of nuclear weapons and technology. At the end of World War II, the spread of nuclear weapons was
happening at an accelerated rate. Countries like the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, France, and China were developing nuclear weapons against the
wishes of the United States. In an attempt to stop proliferation, a group of scientists peacefully protested the development of nuclear weapons by
sending a petition to the United Nations. The United Nation agreed that proliferation was causing political tension so decied to inact the
Non–Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty in 1968. Many nation–states, including the United States and the Soviet Union, signed the treaty. This
treaty has stopped the spread of nuclear weapons in a peaceful way but this treaty is becoming outdate in modern international politics. Global powers
worry countries like North Korea will obtain nuclear power. Also, there is a growing concern that nuclear weapons are causing irreversible damage to
the environment. The growing issue of nuclear proliferation can be evaluated through the Global Governance and Environmental lenses. Possible
solutions are to allow select countries to develop their own nuclear weapons or to establish stronger legislation where the super powers prevent the
spread of nuclear weapons.
The Global Governance lens shows that the nuclear states are given the responsibility to monitor the nuclear supply and prevent it from spreading. This

A Constructivist View of North Korean Nuclear Proliferation
Since the end of the Korean War, the United States has enacted policies to isolate and undermine the Kim Dynasty in North Korea. A key
development took place in the past several decades where North Korea broke away from the Non–Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop their own
nuclear weapons and while lacking launch capabilities, they have been successful in their development. During this process, the United States took
active policies to deter the North Koreans in pursuit of their goals. It is easy to assume that the United States took this stance in order to maintain a
military edge in the region. But under closer examination, this neo–realist perspective does not explain why the United States pursued this policy. In
reality, North Korea ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The reason the US did not take military action against North Korea was precisely because there do exist constraints, even presuming anarchy exists
in the first place. It is very clear that anarchy as such is not a structural cause of anything (Wendt, 1995). Anarchy is a social construct that is ever
evolving through changes in norms and identities. The reasons that the US was constrained did not result from anarchy. Rather, it resulted from a
changing international structure that affected the identity and interest of the US. This conflict began in a time of great upheaval in the world of
international relations. The USSR had collapsed a mere two years prior to North Korea announcing that it would withdraw from the NPT. This
created a sudden gap in what had been driving American foreign policy up until that point. Prior to the Soviet collapse, the US policy was simple. It
would use all military and diplomatic capabilities to stop the spread of communism throughout the world. The United States saw itself as the protector
of democracy and freedom throughout the world. Without the USSR, the US needed to construct a new foreign policy towards the rest of the world
and specifically towards North Korea. Whereas the US would have acted more aggressively if Soviets placed nuclear weapons in North Korea, they
were much more diplomatic in this instance. The difference is that North Korea was no

Nuclear Proliferation In The United States
The world has slowly been transforming into a hostile environment, especially with the growing threat of nuclear attacks. To create a foundation for the
understanding of the global issue, one must comprehend that nuclear proliferation is the spreading of nuclear research, materials, and weapons to
Non–Nuclear Weapons States. Many world leaders have come to the conclusion that nuclear weapons will lead to unavoidable tensions and conflicts.
As a result, countries signed the non–nuclear proliferation treaty in 1968, which came into force in 1970 ("Nuclear Weapons Timeline"). One of the
countries that luckily took charge in the movement, was the United States. From the signing of the treaty to present day, the U.S. has strongly opposed
nuclear ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
On August 6, 1945 the Little Boy was dropped above Hiroshima, Japan. Three days later the Fat Man was dropped over Nagasaki, Japan. The
utilization of nuclear weapons shocked the entire world, and soon after World War II was over. Even though the conflict was over, public anxiety
grew to unforeseen heights shortly after World War II. "The powerful but polluting atmospheric explosions exposed entire communities, known as
downwinders, to the health hazards of radioactive fallout" (Corden and Hafemeister). As Corden and Hafemeister stated, many of the citizens of
Japan were drastically affected with the bizarre side effects of nuclear radiation. The direct damage of the bombings was large enough to take out
entire cities and villages, but anyone not killed by the explosions themselves died an unsatisfactory death. Some people developed various cancers
ranging from skin to lung cancers. In addition to cancer, babies born generations later still developed genetic mutations from the nuclear fallout. This is
very saddening since many of the people facing the consequences of the bombings were not even alive during World War

Nuclear Proliferation Research Paper
One of the foremost growing concerns in the modern globalized world is the increasing rate of nuclear proliferation. Coupled with the burgeoning
number of nuclear devices is the threat of a terrorist possibly obtaining a weapon of such magnitude. While one could argue that the rising number of
states with nuclear capability is a disturbing prospect, particularly as many pursue such capabilities without the approval of the "traditional" nuclear
powers, terrorists in possession of nuclear arms presents the most horrific outlook concerning nuclear proliferation. Terrorist groups, unlike states, are
not organized governmental bodies, which complicates any means of formalized diplomacy or negotiation. Furthermore, unlike as compared to a ...
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
It is conceivable that nuclear weapons in the hands of such groups would be used in a manner both to wreak incredible destruction, and in a sort of
religious homage to the relevant deity, particularly because "worldly consequences are not a central concern for religious terrorists, since they believe
their actions are dictated by a divine authority," (Stern, p.80).
Modern terrorists have come to the realization that "they cannot defeat the United States in a conventional war, but they can impose significant pain
through acts of terrorism," (Stern, p.5). After a century of American military, economic, and social success, the US has been elevated to the forefront of
the global community. A defense budget of $401.7 billion makes the United States the dominant military force in the world, (2005 US Federal Budget).
Furthermore, our history of success has established a general sentiment of invincibility among American citizens, and an attack on our civilian
population would have tremendous ramifications, as was seen with the occurrence of September 11th. However, unlike al–Qaeda in Afghanistan under
the Taliban, a nuclear attack may come from a group that does not enjoy the sponsorship of a state, making retaliation quite complicated. This sense of
anonymity is another issue of terrorists with nukes that trumps a state with such capabilities. In the case of a state, there is a particular, defined, and
easily identifiable party

North Korea Has No Ambition for Nuclear Proliferation...
There has been an increase in the support of taking forceful actions towards North Korea which has seemed to be unpredictable in its steps and
decision taken especially in terms of security. It has maintained its stand on the nuclear arsenal and other programs associated to it, creating a threat to
the security of the whole region and the whole in general (Kim, 2002 pg.6). It has also refused to involve itself in any form of negotiation making the
other nations abandon further negotiations and are determined to take some forceful action against it. I greatly disagree with the stand of forceful
cause of action being taken against North Korea and the withdrawal of any further talks. The involvement of the North Korea in the nuclear plan...
It has emphasized in economic policies and relations which some of these nations that show more interest in the economic policies than political
interests. This is a great indicator that North Korea given if not taken as a threat by these international can help improve their economic policy and
activities from the interactions.
The economy of North Korea is well structured to favor their economic activities. There is existence of a monopoly system in such an economy that
allows for strict scrutiny of economic policies applicable there. Therefore there is no way North Korea will be a treat to the rest of the international
nations when it is allowed to carry on with nuclear programs. In the recent past North Korea has revealed its nuclear ambitions where it can be
recognized as a nuclear weapons producing state. This can be linked to its gains into the economy. This emphasizes on the role of a larger trading
market and investments. The outcome generated from the sale of these nuclear weapons can be reinvested back to the economy to increase the general
productivity.
By North Korea involving itself in large production of nuclear weapons say for example for these international nations it will also improve the
conditions in the economy that enable a smooth production process. In the other hand if North Korea is taken as a threat to the other nations which are

The Proliferation Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction
To what extent do WMDs and their proliferation present a threat to global security and what are possible solutions? Proliferation of Weapons of Mass
Destruction and Threats to Global Security The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is one of the foremost threats challenging global security
today. The United States should take an offensive strategy and re–emphasize its nuclear program due to the current affairs around the globe and the
growing threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction against our citizens, allies and vital interests. The existing arms control agreements, such as
the 1968 Non–Proliferation Treaty and the prohibition of biological weapons of 1972, have not been able to address the issues of weapons of mass...
Movement of illegal imports and the exchange of money can be completed with virtually no restrictions depending on the place and time due to relaxed
import and export laws, lack of enforcement controls, and electronic system networks. Furthermore, many governments seem to be unwilling or unable
to implement control over the development, storage, or use of these weapons. More problematic are the shifting ideologies and international
relationships that have occurred over the decades following the cold war. Today there is little doubt terrorist groups or states would use weapons of
mass destruction to further their interests if they were available. The 9/11 Commission Report documented that Usama bin Laden in an interview with
ABC television had called for Muslims to kill Americans without regard to their status claiming all Americans were "targets." He had also attempted to
purchase weapons–grade enriched uranium for over $1.5 million dollars in an effort to make an atomic bomb. Although the material later turned out not
to be uranium, it clearly indicated the terrorist's intent to discharge nuclear weapons without regard to the subsequent fallout of loss of lives,
environmental or economic impacts worldwide.[footnoteRef:2] According to Frederick Mattis, in Banning Weapons of Mass Destruction, nuclear
weapons are still considered to be the ultimate weapon of mass

Kim Jon II Seeking to Expand Nuclear Proliferation
North Korea –– Kim Jon II Maybe Seeking to Expand Nuclear Proliferation.
After the passing of Kim Jon II in December of 2011 and sanctions placed against North Korea, there is mounting evidence his son, Kim Jong–un is
continuing where his father left off with North Korea's nuclear proliferation. Kim Jon–un and his regime have possibly not only reopened nuclear
facilities, but are currently expanding nuclear and missile sites. There is also evidence he and his regime are doing nuclear and long range missile
testing. North Korea and its nuclear and long range missile testing has been shrouded in mystery for years. There is a lot of speculation as to the
purpose of Kim Jong–un seeking nuclear proliferation. Kim Jong–un has been constantly ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
If this reactor in fact open, this increases the amount or uranium they can produce for nuclear weapons. There is no indication of how much uranium
they can produce with this facility being fully operational.
In December 2013, U.S. inspected the Yongbyon facility. Upon inspection the facility contained approximately 1,000 operational centrifuges which are
one of the most single important elements when enriching uranium (NTI, 2013). After the inspectors left, satellite images of the facility were taken and
compared to images taken two years prior. The images revealed the Yongbyon facility has roughly stayed the same size but "the uranium
–enrichment
portion site appears to have doubled in size" (NTI, 2013). The expansion of the uranium enrichments portion of the facility combined with
approximately 1,000 operation centrifuge is a big indication the facility is in fact working. But what the reports and eye witness accounts do not say is
if the facility is any indication of any workers working within the facility.
Nuclear and Missile testing
News outlets and other sources from North Korea and all over the world, have reported over the past years there is evidence of up to three possible
nuclear tests. Not much is known about these tests and their outcomes.
A South Korean newspaper reported, there are signs of preparations for a possible nuclear test at the Punggye–ri facility in North Korea. This came
from a

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation During The Cold War
Imagine the world with nuclear craters, people living in underground bunkers, and 95% of the world dead. This is what might have happened if the
nuclear non–proliferation treaty was nonexistent. The nuclear non–proliferation treaty entered into force in 1970 with 190 states subscribed. It is
basically a treaty wanting to reduce the number of nuclear weapons held by major power, and it did successfully. The nuclear non–proliferation treaty
has not only had a huge impact on the world, but was the most influential event in world history during the cold war.
The Cold War was a long period of tension between the Western World and the communist countries of Eastern Europe. The west was led by theUnited
States and Eastern Europe was led by the Soviet

Nuclear Proliferation Among Great Powers Is Not A Top...
Nuclear proliferation among great powers is not a top security concern because nuclear deterrence is robust. However, nuclear proliferation becomes
a greater security threat as terrorist organizations in the Middle East acquire nuclear weapons. Radical, undemocratic leaders hold less value for the
lives of populations and are less likely to follow the logic of nuclear deterrence. The United States must counter radical threats and prevent the use of
nuclear weapons by unstable terrorist organizations through a strategy of preemption and hegemony, promoting democracy, and assassinating leaders.
Moreover, the United States has to address cyber threats, asymmetric tools used by terrorists to recruit followers and potentially cause physical ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Nowadays, terrorist organizations can inflict destruction and operate complexly in ways that only military states used to be capable of. For example,
ISIS maintains extensive military capabilities, controls communication and infrastructure, and engages in sophisticated military operations. Moreover,
terrorist organizations like ISIS view weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice. Thus, terrorist organizations operate like states without
rational thinking. Furthermore, new nuclear powers may not be able to adequately hide their nuclear forces and thus field a second strike capability.
Indeed, terrorist organizations are significantly younger than states and do not always have sovereign territory necessary to hiding nuclear forces.
While ISIS does control territory, the territory that it controls is surrounded by sovereign nation–states that can retaliate if ISIS decides to engage in
nuclear warfare. Nuclear proliferation becomes a security threat when terrorist organizations acquire nuclear weapons and use it to achieve political
aims. The United States can counter radical terrorist threats, made more serious by nuclear proliferation, through a combined strategy of preemption
and hegemony, promoting democracy, and assassinating radical leaders. The Bush administration viewed American hegemony as necessary because it
allows the United States to

The Spread Of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate
Two main theorists of international relations, Kenneth Waltz and Scott Sagan have been debating on the issue of nuclear weapons and the proliferation
of nuclear weapons in the 21st century. In their book The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: An Enduring Debate, they both discuss their various theories,
assumptions and beliefs on nuclear proliferation and nuclear weapons. To examine why states would want to attain/develop anuclear weapon and if
increasing nuclear states is a good or bad thing. In my paper, I will discuss both of their theories and use a case study to illustrate which theory I agree
with and then come up with possible solutions of preventing a nuclear war from occurring.
Kenneth Waltz is a renowned international theorist who has a neorealism view. Waltz believes that nuclear weapons can be seen as a positive thing. In
the book he is associated with the belief that "more may be better." He talks about states creating their own sense of security to ward off internal and ...
Nuclear weapons are like the latest toys for state actors. It's something that everyone wants to have because it shows your strength, wealth and power.
Trying to deter people away from that will be a very difficult task. However, I believe that it is achievable to prevent future states from nuclear
proliferation. I believed that if we get all the nuclear states on board with a campaign for nuclear disbarment policy, it could be achieved. That would
entail involving the U.N and the IAEA and of course major funding to start this campaign. In addition to having a campaign for nuclear disarmament, it
would also be very important to stress how they're other ways to protect ones country other than nuclear weapons. Options, which include other
technologies similar to nuclear weapons without nuclear waste being involved, biological weapons, chemical weapons and the old fashion

Some scholars say that in the 21 century nuclear...
Some scholars say that in the 21 century nuclear proliferation will cease to exist. However this construct lacks veracity. Nuclear proliferations will not
seas in the 21 century. It is imperative to note that, there is the impossibility of ever uninventing or eradicating from the human consciousness the
information the skill, that is the awareness of how to build such weaponry.2nd sourse. Nuclear proliferation continues in our daily lives to be among
the greatest dangers that the United States and global treat. In politic, states always search for power. This battle for power is what makes politics.
Politics is who gets what when where and how. Politics is scarcity to all country this is because it a battle of resources as well. States are ... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
Strategic Command in the 1990s. Many of the conclusions and planning assumptions is a to influence U.S. nuclear forces and policy".sourse 3.
Documents show the battle between the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the military services over the scope of the review. focus on the role
of U.S. nuclear weapons against proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. FAS Strategic Studies Project Director Ivan Oelrich finds that, of 15
missions claimed for US nuclear forces, only one justifies their present size and structure: a first strike against Russia's vast nuclear arsenal. Our
continued ability to execute such an attack, makes Russia keep its large force to deter us. The two nations stay locked in Cold War military postures,
even though no stakes between us justify such holocaust." Source 2. "It does not matter whether a debate exist about the nuclear weapon necessity. The
U.S. and Russian strategic dialogue no longer focuses on the question of how many weapons are enough. But each has shifted to a more cautious
stance in considering the flip side of the question, how few are enough"? From my standpoint I do not see nuclear proliferation leaving anytime soon.
There have been many accidents involving nuclear weapons. As far as we know, a nuclear weapon has never been accidentally detonated (worst case
scenario) although there have been close calls. In the 21st century around $40 billion a year, or 10 per cent of the annual US military budget, is spent on

The Role Of Vertical Proliferation In Iraq
In 2003, the United States attacked Iraq using the justifications that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons that Iraq was lying to weapons inspectors,
and that the only way to stop Iraq from using nuclear weapons or giving them to terrorists was to attack them. Most other countries in the world did
not support the US attack on Iraq, so it is generally considered to be a unilateral attack by the US on another country. Let's get one thing straight,
military force is an attack by armed forces (army, navy, air force, marines) of a country against another. The military is trying to either stop a nuclear
war from happening or save many lives or even both. The country that the military is attacking could be trying to create nuclear weapons... Show more
content on Helpwriting.net ...
They think it is unjust, inhumane, and just plain out wrong. Why are these people against it? The military is doing there job trying to protect these
people even if they think it is wrong. For example, here is a person that is against it debating why, "Justified– Accepted, with the expansion that the
societal impact on the world as a whole ought to be considered. While an attack of any kind on a rival nation, political or military, could be
considered beneficial to the aggressor nation, if such an action causes disproportionate harm to the victim nation and there was not adequate threat for
the aggressor to be compelled to that action, it should still be considered unjustified." (Is military force justified). Even though he does make some
pretty good points there are just many more reasons why it is justified. For instance, what if Al Qaeda had nuclear weapons or were even developing
them. They would either blackmail "Nation A" to do what they wanted or just send it at Nation A. The military has to stop these threats before they are
starting to

Essay on Iran and Nuclear Proliferation
Iran and Nuclear Proliferation On February 11th, 2010, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared during a speech on the anniversary of the Islamic
Revolution, that Iran has produced its first package of highly enriched Uranium. This was declared two days after beginning the process earlier that
week. President Ahmadinejad said during his speech that Iran has succeeded in enriching uranium to twenty percent and has the ability to achieve a
purity of more than eighty percent. (Flintoff) The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had advised the United States and otherUnited Nations
(UN) Security Council nations on the possibility of an advanced nuclear development program in Iran. Iran has been consistently resistant to working
with ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Iran, initially known as Persia before 1935, was ruled a monarchy by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi until he was overthrown in 1979 by the
conservative Muslim movement in the country at the time. A theocratic system was established by the Islamic clerics, in which final government
authority rested in the Supreme Leader. During this time, relations between Iran and the United States were strained when Iranian students seized the
United States embassy in Tehran. Iran also has had conflict with Iraq between 1980 thru 1988, which later led to United States involvement in the
Persian Gulf. Iran has also been linked to various Islamic terrorists groups in the region due terrorist activities being conducted in Lebanon and other
parts of the world. Iran has also been the target of sanctions from the UN due to its nuclear weapons ambitions in the region. Since 1997, Iran's
government has been under constant change be reformists parties candidates, most notably by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who was elected in a
controversial election in 2005. (CIA) The Iranian government headed by Ahmadinejad has strong ties with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The
United States "sees the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as supplanting the government of Iran," as stated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The fear is
that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's influence and control spread and the result could be a military dictatorship. (Labott) Originally founded

Nuclear Testing Memo
The purpose for this memo is to address the recent nuclear weapon testing done by Saudi Arabia. In the Treaty on the Nonproliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT) the state Saudi Arabia acceded on October 3rd, 1988. With the current decision to run nuclear weapon testing they have gone against
this treaty they had previously agreed upon. Due to concern in the past about nuclear weapons being purchased from outside sources by Saudi Arabia
we need to address the current problem caustically. I propose a couple alternatives to redress this issue: (1) we hold off on sending military troops into
action, (2) get the current studies on the nuclear proliferation in that area, and (3) address Saudi Arabia about the reasoning for sudden nuclear weapon
testing.
The problem: Saudi Arabia had made the decision to run nuclear weapon testing in their country because they believe it's a matter of national security.
However this action goes against the NPT which Saudi Arabia previously agreed upon.
Policy Recommendations:
1.We hold off on sending military troops into action. It has come to my attention that Israel is demanding immediate sanctions against Saudi Arabia. We
do need to approach Saudi ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Nuclear proliferation in Saudi Arabia. Nuclear proliferation may could be inevitable or good for the United States. This is all speculation and only a
possibility that could happen in the future. When looking at the current issue there is no evidence that Saudi Arabia is a country of concern for nuclear
proliferation. With this information I believe we need to come up with possible sanctions other than war. Joseph Nye would state that power is getting
the outcomes you want. The United States has the power already, and using that power to further influence how Saudi Arabia continues after this issue
will benefit us in the long run. France and the United Kingdom are already trying to diffuse the issue. They are unsuccessful as of now and we could
have more influence than they have

Nuclear Proliferation and Its Negative Effects
Nuclear Proliferation Affecting The World in a Negative Way
For the past thirty years, Iran and North Korea have been trying to develop and design a nuclear warhead, nowadays; American spies say that Iran has
built a Uranium enrichment plant on Qum. Uranium enrichment is the hardest step in order to produce nuclear weapon, and North Korea has already
tested nuclear weapons the past years. This is a way to prove that nuclear proliferation keeps increasing in the world and this could balance the world
power in a negative way. If states that are directly against each other keep increasing their nuclear arsenal, the world could be ruled or at least
influenced by an unstable military power determined by actions made with nuclear weapons. By ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Libya, another nation that was considered an immediate threat for the United Nations because of their nuclear development plans had recently
promised to end their bombing–make labors and the American government state that " The Success of [Their] mission in Libya underscores the
success of this administration's broader nonproliferation efforts around the world" . However of those two rogue nations North Korea is considered to
be a bigger danger since unstable treaty which ended the Korean War didn't eliminate the hostilities between the authoritarian regime of North Korean
and the United States. Nevertheless, on 1994 Bill Clinton signed a treaty with North Korea that ended their plutonium production in exchange of
energy supplies from the United States. This agreement ended when on October 2002, the assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific
affairs, James A. Kelly, visited North Korea and stated that the visit was "frank but useful" and "raised, in a frank manner, our concerns on a full range
of issues, including weapons of mass destruction, missile–development programs, missile exports, North Korea's threatening conventional force
posture, human rights failings and the dire humanitarian situation." Right after this, North Korea Withdrew form the Non Proliferation Treaty and was
kicked out from the United Nations and expanded their

Essay Nuclear Proliferation
What is the status of the international nonproliferation of nuclear weapons?
Outline Title
I. Introduction
A. &#8220;Floating Chernobyl';
B. Something to think about
II. Statistics
A. Russia&#8217;s nuclear arsenal
B. US&#8217; nuclear arsenal
III. Treaties
A. START I
B. START II
C. START III
IV. THREATS
A. New Power Landscape
B. Broken Command
C. Broken Army
V. Status ofOther Countries
A. Iraq
B. North Korea
C. Iran
D. Libya
E. Cuba
F. Pakistan
G. India
VI. ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In July 1994, Turkish Police in Istanbul seized 22 pounds of uranium smuggled out of Azerbaijan. In August 1994, a Lufthansa flight from

Moscow landed in Munich carrying a lead–lined suitcase filled with
350 grams of plutonium that the smugglers had planned to sell for
$70,000 a gram. In December 1994, Czech police found an astonishing
3 kilograms of highly enriched, weapons–grade uranium in the back seat of a parked car in Prague. To think about something just think that it only
takes 10 kilograms of highly enriched uranium to build a bomb with the firepower of the &#8220;Little Boy';. &#8220;Little Boy'; , by the
way, killed
75,000 people in Hiroshima back in World War II. If someone was to unleash three to five kilograms of plutonium out in the open in
Manhattan, it wouldn&#8217;t kill many people, but it would severely contaminate a huge area of Manhattan making thousands of people to
move and bring the world&#8217;s financial center to a halt.
In these following paragraphs I am going to throw you a bunch of numbers, but these numbers can&#8217;t be confirmed because we
don&#8217;t know exactly how many weapons Russia or the United States has because either one can be secretly stockpiling nuclear weapons
without the public or the other nations having clue. Russia&#8217;s nuclear

Nuclear Proliferation : Nuclear Weapons
Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear missiles, nuclear bombs, nuclear wars, everything seems to have fallen into the same category, but nobody has really
payed attention to the "big picture" and has actually took the time to realize what this is really about. Many people may ask what exactly is it that
really seems to start up all of this, but will any other individual really be able to answer this type of question? Society needs to put in the time to really
think about it and ask themselves "What is Nuclear Proliferation? How did it start? Who bothered to start and/or try to stop it?" Although it may be
hard to understand, reading deep into this type of category may lead to things that no one ever expected to find out. What others may not know is
that it has made a big impact into many nations that are now having to deal with these types of conflicts; but of course, unless an individual actually
decides to look into it, they will never have a clue to what it is. Nuclear proliferation is put in effect as the spread of weapons to different nations that
are not being recognized as Nuclear Weapon States by a treaty known as Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). Which in most cases, it has been
suggested that the decisions on constructing these types of weapons would be dictated by the interests on their very own governing domestic
coalitions. Now, the nuclear nonproliferation treaty is a treaty by which its ambitions are mainly to prohibit the spread of any sorts of weapons

Argumentative Analysis
The three interesting pieces for this week all point, in one way or another, to dangers of nuclear proliferations. President Barack Obama's speech in
Prague on April 5, 2009 indicated that the spread of nuclear weapons to states, not deemed capable of handling these weapons, made the current state of
affairs on the international stage unstable. In a Wall Street Journal op–ed piece, former US Secretary of States, George Shultz and Henry Kissinger,
together with William Perry and Sam Nunn, wrote on ridding the world of nuclear weapons through a series of outlined measures. The third piece by
Michael Horowitz from 2013 makes the case that states with nuclear weapons development programs tended to harness militaristic intentions for the
weapons... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Despite raising this issue, Horowitz alludes that it must emanate from the intentions. According to him, it was more likely the case that Japanese
intentions with its nuclear programs were more aligned towards peaceful means as compared to the Iranians (Horowitz 2013). The speculation on
intentions, even with the support with of statistical data and models, might be necessary to ascertain what would be the best course of action to take;
but it might not be sufficient enough in assisting with the action that would yield the least amount of risk. The Japanese government might be faced
geopolitical challenges on a short notice, which would force it to weaponize its nuclear program

Nuclear Proliferation : The United States
Amin Anjedani
International Relations
Professor Manson
14 May 2015
Nuclear Proliferation The proliferation, or rapid increase in numbers, of nuclear weapons among states, has become an incredibly trying and pressing
issue in our world today. Tensions between states that have nuclear capabilities are reaching all time highs and fingers are being pointed in every
direction. However, the entire issue regarding nuclear proliferation begins with the United States. In 1945, World War II came to an abrupt halt when,
on August 6th and August 9th, the U.S. dropped the first atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bombs instantly killed
70,000 individuals, and an estimated 340,000 total died as a result of the fallout (2). As a result of the monumental power and destruction that the
United States demonstrated, the world's reaction was to try and implement a plan that would ban the use of nuclear weapons. The plan would have
been regulated by international law, but, unfortunately, no deal could be reached. It had taken another 25 years before the Non–Proliferation Treaty
was formed. At this point, five states already possessed nuclear weapons of even greater power and magnitude than the original atomic bombs. Today,
America is still dealing with the "fallout" of the United States, a fateful decision to expose the world to weapons of mass destruction (4).
As stated earlier, an attempt at banning nuclear weapons directly after the United States dropped the

Deterrence And Organizational Theory : Nuclear Proliferation
Said Abdikarim
Political Science 4315
Professor Gelpi
Deterrence/Organizational Theory
Nuclear Proliferation The subject of nuclear development has been very sensitive in world politics among nations that have vested interest. As some
countries steered towards the development of such sophisticated weapons, they were met with heavy criticism, from those who already possess them.
Those countries that already developed nuclear weapons worked towards minimizing and safety securing such weapons. Different interest groups
pushed the agenda for their perspective states to mounting towards nuclear capability. In the field of nuclear proliferation it is politically motivated with
different key players advocating for the need to proliferate. The development for nuclear capability has been echoed as being the basis for bringing
peace and stability to such countries. Scholarly minds have jumped into the notion that being nuclear arm can bring peace and stability among those
states that have nuclear weapons. However as every argument is met with skepticism, there are those scholars that suggest being nuclear arm is a bad
idea waiting to explode. This research will locate the case between the two nuclear arm states of Pakistan and Indian and the conflict that brews between
them. The analysis and assumptions between these two states will be based on the theories of deterrence and organizational theory. These states
present an interesting point of view due to their

Nuclear Proliferation and Tension on the Korean Peninsula
The US should unofficially help South Korea build nuclear missiles and place them at the North Korean border. The US should treat them like they
treat Israel's and pretend they don't exist. We will send American engineers and workers over to South Korea to help build them and tell the public and
the world that it is to help build infrastructure. It will be revenue for American companies and workers while simultaneously protecting South Korea. If
the secret of South Korea having nuclear weapons is exposed the US should say they have placed out own nuclear weapons at the border for defensive
purposes. America shouldn't admit that they have helped the South Koreans become nuclear instead they should act as if they put American nuclear
weapons on American bases in South Korea. If Kim Jung Un mentions them turn the focus on his illegal weapons activity and threaten to at the very
least impose U.N. Security Council sanctions for their nuclear and missile tests. If North Korea is no longer honoring the armistice South Korea
shouldn't be required to either.
Like any plan there are possible downfalls to this. If the secret missiles become public knowledge the American people might feel like the government
was hiding things from them and that may greatly impact the democrat's chances in the next election. Although voters haven't elected the same political
party for president three terms in a row since 1993 so going off this pattern the chances of democrats wining the next

What Grounds Are There For Thinking That Nuclear...
Question: What grounds are there for thinking that nuclear proliferation is to be encouraged?
Introduction, Thesis Statement, and Outline of Argument
Carl Sagan very memorably likened the nuclear arms race to "two sworn enemies standing waist deep in gasoline – one with three matches, the other
with five." This scenario underscores the false sense of security, the fallacy of nuclear superiority, and the danger posed by the proliferation and mere
existence of weapons capable of achieving nuclear holocaust and widespread destruction. This essay will analyze and acknowledge the grounds for
supporting/tolerating nuclear proliferation using the cases of Israel and Iran as examples, while arguing that theoretical grounds for proliferation do not
outweigh the actual and potential risks of escalation to nuclear war, nuclear miscalculation or accident, or nuclear technology falling into the hands of
increasingly sophisticated terrorist groups.
Military Balancing as Justification for Proliferation
The concept of military balancing between states is often employed to justify proliferation. Founder of the neo–realist school (also known as structural
realism) Kenneth Waltz believed that states act in their own self–interests within an anarchical system – not in the sense of chaos, but in the sense that
no higher power exists above state actors. In a Foreign Policy article entitled "Why Iran Should Get the Bomb", Waltz argued that Iran should obtain a
nuclear weapon to balance

Definitions Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction
1. Using two references and in your words, defines Weapons of Mass Destruction?
Weapons of mass destruction might be described as "weapon with the capacity to inflict death and destruction on such a massive scale and so
indiscriminately that its very presence in the hands of a hostile power can be considered a grievous threat"(WMDC, 2006). Most weapons of mass
destruction are nuclear, biological, or chemical. The term is a relatively new one, as it first appeared in December 1937 in an address by Archbishop
Of Canterbury. Weapons of mass destruction may also include fierce fighting machines such as tanks and atomic missiles. These arms can cause
massive damage to physical structures such as buildings, roads, and bridges (Graham & Talent, 2008). However, the meaning of the term was quite
different from the way it is used in the contemporary international law. "Weapons of mass destruction" appear in the document signed by Harry Truman
in 1945. After that, the term "weapons of mass destruction" was included in the titular resolution passed by the General Assembly of theUnited Nations
(WMDC, 2006). The essential characteristics of these arms are their ability to cause large–scale destruction. There is no single definition of the term
"large–scale destruction". However, it could be assumed that massive destruction is the one that causes injuries or death for a large number of people
and the one that destroys vast territories, causing damage to ecology and making it

The United States Vs. The Warsaw Pact
On August 6, 1945 the first atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima, instantly killing 66,000 people. The dropping of the
bomb also had broader circumstances as it forced the surrender of Japan, officially ending World War II. However, the end of World War II marked
the beginning of the political conflict and military tension between Russia and the United States known as the cold war. The "war" became global as
it as it transformed from the U.S.S.R. vs. the United States to NATO vs. the Warsaw Pact. The Cold War ended in 1991, and now about twelve
countries are confirmed or suspected to possess nuclear weapons. Globalization has advanced both the spread of nuclear weapons, and their
disarmament. Non–proliferation efforts... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Scientists from Germany were making huge progress on the topic of nuclear fission. Fortunately, many of these scientists escaped the authoritarian
Germany. These refugees, including Albert Einstein warned the United States about the German's nuclear weapons capability. Consequently, the
United States created the Manhattan Project in 1942 under fears of a nuclear attack by the Germans.
The Manhattan Project was a secret military project created to produce the first US nuclear weapon. However, the United States soon learned that the
Germans were nowhere near the full formation of a nuclear weapon. Now, their attentions focused to the Pacific front where they were in a costly
war with the Japanese. American casualties were mounting into huge numbers, and Japanese soldiers refused to surrender. The United States knew
they risked over a million casualties if they chose to invade Japan. Instead, they chose to launch two nuclear bombs on the Japanese towns of
Nagasaki and Hiroshima. This would lead to a new nuclear age in which the world would be in fear of being bombarded by a nuclear weapon. Till this
day the grave effects of these first two weapons keep the world's aim to curb the use of these weapons.
After the end of the Second World War, the United States had a monopoly on the atomic bomb. However, this would see end in August 1949 as the
Soviets unexpectedly detonated an atomic bomb. After this,

Nuclear Proliferation Essay
Nuclear Proliferation
Andrew Jackson's farewell address to the nation, he stated, "We shall more certainly preserve peace when it is well understood that we are prepared
for war," (Political Quotations #3719). The United States has always throughout history been a major military power from the use of abnormal tactics
during the Revolutionary War (1776) to the use of its technology and advanced weapons in the Persian Gulf War (1991). After World War II and the
Cold War Era, the United States has been able to defend its citizens from any form of a military attack from the sea, air, and the ground on the eastern
and western seaboards. With the development of the intercontinental ballistic missiles, the United States was now unable to ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
Then during the Persian Gulf War the Patriot Missile System was used to shoot down Iraq's SCUD missiles flying towards other nations. (Kitfield
119–121). The system's history started in 1983 with Ronald Reagan's speech, but was only used during the 1991 Persian Gulf War in a reduced in the
form, of the Patriot Missile system to defend nation of Israel.
The American people feel the system is unnecessary for the protection of the mainland United States. The United States is currently unable of
intercepting a ballistic missile warhead once it has been deployed against the United States (Freeman 37+). Along with these threats from the former
Soviet Union States the United States now has to worry about such "Rogue nations" like North Korea, Iran and Iraq. During the 1990's, some experts
believed that it would take such "rogue nations" at least a decade to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the continental
United States. (Kitfield 111–112). Paul Freeman reported "Most Americans, however, believe that there is adequate capability of defend their homeland
against a ballistic missile attack. (37+). The American people do not believe that these "rogue nations" have the capability to destroy American cities.
The threat is there the question is not there capably but their willingness to use nuclear or chemical weapons against

Nuclear Weapons And Nuclear Proliferation
Committee 9
Nuclear Proliferation
Vanuatu
(A)Brief Background of the Topic
1.)What is the historical background of this topic?
Nuclear Proliferation is defined as the rapid spread or increase of nuclear weapons. Nuclear Proliferation has been a conflict worldwide for years. It all
started during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union and the United States competed to obtain more nuclear weapons. As the Cold War continued,
France, Britain, and China all began to develop their own nuclear technology. On July 1, 1968, the Treaty on the Non–Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
was signed and entered into force in 1970. Under this treaty, a total of 190 parties have agreed to help prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. A few
years later, the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks non–proliferation act (SALT 1) was signed on May 26, 1972 and entered into force on October 3, 1972.
After several years of struggle, the Cold War ended in December 1991.
2.)What nations are directly involved in this issue?
The top "contributors" of nuclear proliferation include countries like the United States and Russia (formerly Soviet Union). These two countries were
the first to obtain and test nuclear weapons. They are responsible for more than 93% of all operational nuclear warheads. United Kingdom, France,
China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea all created nuclear arsenals to attain these weapons of mass destruction. The United States currently
possesses approximately 7,650 warheads, Russia has

The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty ( Npt )
Uranium is the fuel most by and large used to make nuclear imperativeness. That is by virtue of uranium particles split isolated by and large easily. It
's also a particularly standard segment, found in shakes all over the place all through the world. Regardless, the specific kind of uranium used to
convey nuclear imperativeness, called U–235, is remarkable. U–235 makes up under one percent of the uranium on the planet.
Though a segment of the uranium the United States uses is mined in this country, most is outside. The U.S. gets uranium from Australia, Canada,
Kazakhstan, Russia, and Uzbekistan. At the point when uranium is mined, it must be removed from distinctive minerals. It ought to moreover be
arranged before it can be used.
Since nuclear fuel can be used to make nuclear weapons and what 's more nuclear reactors, just nations that are a bit of the Nuclear Non–Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) are allowed to import uranium or plutonium, another nuclear fuel. The settlement propels the tranquil use of nuclear fuel, furthermore
limiting the spread of nuclear weapons.
A normal nuclear reactor uses around 59,000 metric tons (65,000 tons) of uranium reliably. Complex methods allow some uranium and plutonium to be
re–enhanced or reused. This reduces the measure of mining, isolating, and taking care of that ought to be done.
Nuclear essentialness produces control that can be used to power homes, schools, associations, and facilities. The principle nuclear reactor to convey

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Within the International Arena
Nuclear Non–Proliferation within the International Arena:
An assessment on major solutions from both a realist and liberal perspective
As defined by Christoph Bluth from the Political Studies Association, the proliferation of nuclear weapons is "widely perceived by political leaders as
one of the major problems of global security in the contemporary era" (Bluth, 2012). This is clear by the catalog of concern and actions taken by
governments around the world to address the issue of nuclear weaponry. With more than 22,000 nuclear weapons in existence today, international law
must try to unite with nations in order to control, constrain and potentially eliminate nuclear weapons (Bluth, 2012). The following essay will examine
nuclear ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
(and, presumably, every other nuclear state) explicitly agrees to a conventional law (Granoff, 2011). But as Granoff points out, the United States
already ignores that the law of armed conflict–including the rules of distinction and proportionality–apply to any use of forced, including nuclear
weaponry. In principle, the realist perspective would say that in current real–world circumstance, neither the use of nuclear weapons nor the threat of
using them could be reconciled by international law. Why? Because states are nearly always practicing in terms of self–interest in order to protect the
interest of their people, which means sometimes foregoing nuclear treaties during wartime. The realist believes the international system is defined by
anarchy–the absence of a central authority (Gronlund, 2014). States are autonomous of each other; no inherent structure can emerge or even exist to
order relations between them. This philosophy can be applied to the pressing issue of nuclear weapons. Even though we are making attempts to cap
the production and spread of nuclear weapons, only through power can states defend themselves and hope to survive. So written laws as well as
proliferation can be scoffed at in wartime by powerful nations. Considering the realist perspective, what is the best solution? When it comes to nuclear
proliferation in the realist sense, it is safe to

The United States Road Map to World Peace and Security
The United States after dropping the atomic bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan that resulted to over two hundred thousand casualties over sixty
years ago have promised not to use the same weapon again against a non–nuclear sovereign state. The fear that nuclear weapons will be used again in
war culminated the establishment of the Non–Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that was originally signed by the five big nuclear states, namely United
States, France, China, Russia, and United Kingdom. Today, there are 188 parties to the treaty that agreed not to develop nuclear weapons nor be a
recipient of these weapons. In September 26, 2009, the President of the United States, Mr. Barack Obama addressed the United Nations and promised
to negotiate with... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The President said for the year 2010, the U.S. Defense Department will cut back budget for nuclear funding in the amount of $50 billion per year,
which can be diverted in other critical programs of the United States (815). The United Nations have sought long for a nuclear–free world and now
supports the plan of the United States on nuclear disarmament to achieve peace and security in the world. Our world is in the tip of nuclear proliferation
and a growing risk on nuclear terrorism. President Barack Obama position for nuclear disarmament and non–proliferation of these weapons is his
commitment to the world that is yet to been seen. But I strongly support President Obama's plan as a requirement for survival, peace, economics, and
health of our nation and future generations. Nuclear weapons cannot be used for military presence and deterrence that will violate international human
rights. Also, accepting the use of nuclear weapons is tantamount to the willingness to accept the incineration of human mankind with the radioactive
devastation effect, which is immoral.
President Obama must begin without delay the abolition of nuclear weapons even though this will take a decade to complete. This can only be done by
the implementation of a comprehensive, irreversible, binding, auditable treaty. Such approach will eliminate world class nuclear weapons, including
weapons of mass

I Disagree With Kenneth WaltzвЂ™S Positionthat Nuclear...
I disagree with Kenneth Waltz's position that nuclear proliferation makes the world a safer place, and how best to measure the spread of nuclear
weapons, particularly in regimes that are developing, unstable, or "third–world."1 While some scholars see nuclear weapons as a threat to stability and
peace due to their mass destruction capability and the potential for horrific fallout triggered by ethnic and geopolitical instability, others see those
weapons as holding the power to maintain an appropriate balance of power between opposing regimes at times of tension and during periods of low
level conflict. This debate is reflected in international relations.
Waltz argues that nuclear weapons keep the world secure, as states would not take the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
As for second–strike deterrence, Waltz states that there are two necessities: survival of a first attack and the ability to inflict sufficient damage.
Without absolute certainty of destruction of the opposition's arsenal, a country would be less likely to attack. Because of uncertainty about the size of
another country's arsenal size, nations would not take the risk of retaliation; "Even the largest states recoil from taking adventurous steps if the price
of failure is the possible loss of a city or two"1. The problem I see with this position is that nations may sometimes benefit from spotting "signatures"
that are carelessly sent to enemy intelligence agencies which may inadvertently reveal secret information about the size and location of otherwise
"hidden" military forces. For example, Pakistani road construction crews inadvertently signaled the location of secret M–11 missiles by placing
wide–radius roads at Sargodha Missile Base . The failure of the Soviet military to keep its 1962 missile deployment in Cuba secret was similarly
caused by construction crew routines that produced "signatures" which highlighted the location of the missiles. The "Star of David" pattern of air
defense missile battery placements and "slash marks" on missile pads gave away the Cuban secret to the Americans.
Regarding the accidental use of nuclear weapons, Waltz dismisses this

The Effects of Nuclear Weapons on the World
Nuclear weapons are the most dangerous weapons on earth. One can demolish a whole city, potentially killing millions, and exposed the natural
environment and lives of future generations through its long–term catastrophic effects. According to the UNODA– United Nations Office for
Disarmament Affairs (2011), "Although nuclear weapons have only been used twice in warfare– in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in
1945–about 22,000 reportedly remains in our world today and there have been over 2,000 nuclear tests conducted to date." Nuclear weapons have
been viewed as a threat to peace by world leaders. There have been debates of whether to let Iran and North Korea acquire nuclear weapons, leaders
all around the world along with Liberals believe that it is a threat to peace and should limit the spread whereas neo realist have another belief that
nuclear weapon can make the world a peaceful place. Because states would fear to attack each other. For example the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 and
cold war– there were only threats and war did not happen because of nuclear deterrence. The Cuban missile crisis has frequently been portrayed as the
only time where the world stood in the point of nuclear war between the superpowers. This is an example of how nuclear weapons were used to
threaten the rival. Another examples would be that of India and Pakistan before they acquire nuclear weapon , they fought three bloody wars after
having their independence but since 1998, after acquiring

The Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Weapons Proliferation
Equally important to the safety standards forced upon nuclear engineers, is the prospect of nuclear weapons proliferation as a byproduct of energy
production. It has been a topic of debate since the mid–1940s when the first nuclear bombs were being produced for war under the United States
Manhattan Project, and since then has received varied attention throughout the years. In its simplest form, there is concern that the same technologies
that are being used to produce nuclear power, may also be able to allow access to nuclear weapons in the process. The Nuclear Threat Initiative covers
these issues, pointing explicitly to fuel enrichment and reprocessing as the most dangerous. It is believed that high–grade uranium (which is only used
in laboratory... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), for instance, is a well–versed piece that covers these risks. Within the treaty, enacted in 1970, each state
subscribed is responsible for the disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The first Articles disavow any acceptance or
transfer of weapons between nuclear or non–nuclear states, followed by Article III which mandates safeguards that must be followed by all
participating members. While maintaining the ability for each state to conduct research on nuclear energy peacefully, the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty ensures that each country signing (a total of 190 have signed), is monitored for the improper use of nuclear energy within the country. This
treaty was made in light of the truth of preventing nuclear weapons proliferation, such that it requires the international cooperation and participation ––
a cooperation of industry, civility, and security to further the safety of nuclear energy for the public. The countries possessing nuclear weapons during
the treaty's conception (China, Russia, France, the U.K. and the U.S), are all committed to the steady reduction of weapons stockpiles in their own
countries; all signing countries are not permitted to produce nuclear weapons

Foreign Policy, Globalization, And Nuclear Proliferation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Catherine Aguirre

More from Catherine Aguirre (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Foreign Policy, Globalization, And Nuclear Proliferation